A-10 in WWII??

[Stephen Harding]

We've had a couple scenarios of aircraft going back in
time and speculation on what sort of effect they'd have.

I just saw a show on the A-10 Warthog with a top speed
of 420 mph. That's WWII fighter speeds (although I'm
not certain at what altitude).

Since an A-10 can carry something like 16,000 pounds of
weapons, at the speeds it flies, it would be one hell of
a WWII bomber. I'll bet even Art would ditch Willie in
a second to fly such a machine.

But what about as a fighter? Other than the extreme
ruggedness of the aircraft, would it have been any good
in fighter contests, especially in Europe, but in the
Pacific as well?

Seems the 30mm canon is a bit over kill for fighters.
Probably just load it up with a bunch of 20mm canons
in wings and as would fit in the nose.

It wouldn't be much good taking over mustang escort
duty since its range is only about 800 miles.

The aircraft seems very maneuverable, but I have no clue
how its roll rate, climb, dive and turn/stall performance
compare with a late WWII fighter of German or Japanese
pedigree.

Could an A-10 hold its own, or best, an Me 109 or FW 190?
An Oscar, Zero, Tony, Frank, whatever?

No doubt the marines in the Pacific would love the A-10
and the harrassed German ground transport would really
take a thrashing if this aircraft showed up. But would
the fighter opposition be quaking in their flight boots?


SMH

[Krztalizer]

Few people know this, but the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German design.
Sabotage at the factory and defeatist whiners kept the project from flying
before VE Day, but in 20 years the original plans will be released by the
military, clearly showing the RLM stamp in the upper left corner.

I know its true because I read it on Venik's website.

Gordon

[Prowlus]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> Few people know this, but the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German design.
> Sabotage at the factory and defeatist whiners kept the project from flying
> before VE Day, but in 20 years the original plans will be released by the
> military, clearly showing the RLM stamp in the upper left corner.
>
> I know its true because I read it on Venik's website.
>
> Gordon



is it this model?

http://www.luft46.com/junkers/jugap.html

the tail assembley's there but the rest of it looks more like a A-9

[robert arndt]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> Few people know this, but the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German design.
> Sabotage at the factory and defeatist whiners kept the project from flying
> before VE Day, but in 20 years the original plans will be released by the
> military, clearly showing the RLM stamp in the upper left corner.
>
> I know its true because I read it on Venik's website.
>
> Gordon

It IS actually a stolen German design- a nameless Junkers Attack
Project which started in 1941.
From "Luftwaffe Secret Projects, Ground Attack & Special-Purpose
Aircraft" page 36:
" In mid-1941 the Development Department of the Junkerswerke in Dessau
commenced work on a project for a low-level and ground attack aircraft
as a replacement for the Hs 129. The project study involved a rather
plump-looking mid-wing aircraft with two wingroot-mounted turbojets.
According to works documentation, the turbojets were to have been two
Daimler-Benz 109-007 ZTL units which allowed a considerable increase
in performance at a reduced fuel consumption. Designed by Prof Dr-Ing
Karl Leist, head of the Abteilung Sondertriedwerk (Special Engines
Department) at the Daimler-Benz AG, the two-circuit or bypass
turbojets had a larger air intake and overall diameter than the
single-circuit BMW 003 and Jumo 004 turbojets.
Besides this new type of turbojet, strong armor plating was to have
been provided for the fuselage and powerplants. As a ground attack
aircraft, it was to have been equipped with four 30mm MK 103 and and
four 20mm MG 151/20 cannon. The undercarriage main wheels were to
retract forwards into the fuselage sides as shown in the three-view
drawing. As litle experience had been gathered with nosewheels which
for a long time had been rejected by the RLM as too " American", a
retractable pneumatically-sprung skid replaced the nosewheel.
The long gestation period of turbojet development at Daimler-Benz that
resulted in the first turbojet test-bed runs only in March 1943, led
to termination of the project. Several decades later, this project
served as the forerunner for the US Fairchild A-10A Thunderbolt (also
known as the Warthog) ground attack and low-level combat aircraft
which cannot deny its resemblence to the nameless Junkers ground
attack aircraft."

On the next page is pictured the A-10, a three-view of the Junkers
project, and both a schematic drawing and actual photo of the DB
109-007 turbojet on its engine test-bed. Accompanying note on the
A-10:

" A Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt prototype. Its similarity to the
Junkers design scheme is UNMISTAKEABLE. The propulsion units, mounted
in lateral fuselage nacelles were two General Electric TF 34-GE 100
bypass turbojets..."

As for the A-10s revolver cannon- so what? The Germans had a range of
heavy Bordwaffe in development including the Duka 88. Even the A-10 in
WW2 would have been downed if hit in the engines with that baby!

Rob

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(robert arndt) writes:
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
>> Few people know this, but the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German design.
>> Sabotage at the factory and defeatist whiners kept the project from flying
>> before VE Day, but in 20 years the original plans will be released by the
>> military, clearly showing the RLM stamp in the upper left corner.
>>
>> I know its true because I read it on Venik's website.
>>
>> Gordon
>
> It IS actually a stolen German design- a nameless Junkers Attack

That's like fishing for Farm Trout, Gordon,

(For those unfamiliar, Aquaculture Trout are raised in controlled
ponds, and generally fed Dog Food. To catch one, just put some
Kibble on a hook * toss it in)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Kevin Brooks]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
>...
> > Few people know this, but the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German
design.
> > Sabotage at the factory and defeatist whiners kept the project from
flying
> > before VE Day, but in 20 years the original plans will be released by
the
> > military, clearly showing the RLM stamp in the upper left corner.
> >
> > I know its true because I read it on Venik's website.
> >
> > Gordon
>
> It IS actually a stolen German design-

Holy Crap, the resident Aryan Superiority Advocate actually took that
dangling piece of bait...

Brooks

<snip>

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, robert
arndt > writes
(Krztalizer) wrote in message
>...
>> Few people know this, but the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German design.
>> Sabotage at the factory and defeatist whiners kept the project from flying
>> before VE Day, but in 20 years the original plans will be released by the
>> military, clearly showing the RLM stamp in the upper left corner.
>>
>> I know its true because I read it on Venik's website.
>>
>> Gordon
>
>It IS actually a stolen German design- a nameless Junkers Attack
>Project which started in 1941.

Gordon, you have my salute. You cast a lure... and your prey didn't just
swallow hook, line and sinker but ate the rod as well - before looking
around for a club to helpfully gaff himself!



--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Krztalizer]

>
>That's like fishing for Farm Trout, Gordon,

shhh. My bucket is almost full.

:)

G

[Andy Bush]

420 knots in the A-10...depends on whether or not we're talking indicated
airspeed or true. 420 indicated is a "book" speed...few Hog pilots ever see
that in the cockpit.

With a decent load, a typical max speed in a cool, sea level climate would
be about 350KIAS. Any hard maneuvering would bleed that down pretty fast.
Increase the temperature, and the jet's performance drops off
alarmingly...at Red Flag, we could get maybe 300KIAS on the deck after a
long run in. A 90 degree hard turn would bleed that down to about 250KIAS
which was our "knock it off" point.

The A-10 is quite maneuverable for its apparent size. WW2 fighter roll rates
were relatively slow compared to modern jets...and roll rate is a very
important aspect of turn performance. If the A-10 is clean, it can maneuver
very well in cool temperatures and low altitudes. It is not a high altitude
machine, and would not be a good comparison to a late WW2 fighter in that
sense.

The A-10 gun is a true laser beam in close in air combat...and today's Hog
has a much better gunsight than was in the early 1980s airplane. In Europe
back in the good old days, there was many a F-16 and F-15 pilot that lived
to rue the day that he got low and slow with the Hog.

But, after all is said and done, in these comparisons, we always have to
return to the only thing that is important. The pilot. Past that, most
everything else is conjecture.
"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> We've had a couple scenarios of aircraft going back in
> time and speculation on what sort of effect they'd have.
>
> I just saw a show on the A-10 Warthog with a top speed
> of 420 mph. That's WWII fighter speeds (although I'm
> not certain at what altitude).
>
> Since an A-10 can carry something like 16,000 pounds of
> weapons, at the speeds it flies, it would be one hell of
> a WWII bomber. I'll bet even Art would ditch Willie in
> a second to fly such a machine.
>
> But what about as a fighter? Other than the extreme
> ruggedness of the aircraft, would it have been any good
> in fighter contests, especially in Europe, but in the
> Pacific as well?
>
> Seems the 30mm canon is a bit over kill for fighters.
> Probably just load it up with a bunch of 20mm canons
> in wings and as would fit in the nose.
>
> It wouldn't be much good taking over mustang escort
> duty since its range is only about 800 miles.
>
> The aircraft seems very maneuverable, but I have no clue
> how its roll rate, climb, dive and turn/stall performance
> compare with a late WWII fighter of German or Japanese
> pedigree.
>
> Could an A-10 hold its own, or best, an Me 109 or FW 190?
> An Oscar, Zero, Tony, Frank, whatever?
>
> No doubt the marines in the Pacific would love the A-10
> and the harrassed German ground transport would really
> take a thrashing if this aircraft showed up. But would
> the fighter opposition be quaking in their flight boots?
>
>
> SMH
>

[Eunometic]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> > Few people know this, but the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German design.
> > Sabotage at the factory and defeatist whiners kept the project from flying
> > before VE Day, but in 20 years the original plans will be released by the
> > military, clearly showing the RLM stamp in the upper left corner.
> >
> > I know its true because I read it on Venik's website.
> >
> > Gordon
>
> It IS actually a stolen German design- a nameless Junkers Attack
> Project which started in 1941.
> From "Luftwaffe Secret Projects, Ground Attack & Special-Purpose
> Aircraft" page 36:

http://www.luft46.com/junkers/jugap.html

SNIP
> As a ground attack
> aircraft, it was to have been equipped with four 30mm MK 103 and and
> four 20mm MG 151/20 cannon.

The Mk103 had 140mm of penetration when firing tungsten cored
amunition from a FW190. From the faster jet it would have been more.


>
> On the next page is pictured the A-10, a three-view of the Junkers
> project, and both a schematic drawing and actual photo of the DB
> 109-007 turbojet on its engine test-bed. Accompanying note on the
> A-10:

The DB 109-107 was actualy more of a turbofan. It had a rear combined
turbine-fan that at its inner (near the blade roots) and outer (i.e.
the tips) peripherty opperated as a fan while only 40% opperated as a
tubine. The cooling effect allowed a very high 1000C intlet
temperature, very high for the materials of the day.

The engine would have been extremely quiet because of the mixing of
fast and slow gases. You can see the rear fan inlet cowling on the
painting here.

http://www.luft46.com/junkers/jugap.html

>
> " A Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt prototype. Its similarity to the
> Junkers design scheme is UNMISTAKEABLE. The propulsion units, mounted
> in lateral fuselage nacelles were two General Electric TF 34-GE 100
> bypass turbojets..."

Similar problems lead to similar solutions. Neverthelss it is an
indication that the Germans had grasped the tactical possibility of
the Jet. They were clearly after miracles to stop the masses of
Soviet tanks bearing down on them.

I don't think this designe would have been a goer for the Germans who
needed a faster aircraft to avoid interception. It greatest use would
have been in pluging tank breakthroughs. I thnk this speedier designe
would have been more usefull.
http://www.luft46.com/mess/mep10199.html

>
> As for the A-10s revolver cannon- so what? The Germans had a range of
> heavy Bordwaffe in development including the Duka 88. Even the A-10 in
> WW2 would have been downed if hit in the engines with that baby!
>
> Rob

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
om...

> The Mk103 had 140mm of penetration when firing tungsten cored
> amunition from a FW190. From the faster jet it would have been more.
>
>

Of course not having any tungsten to spare this was
rather academic

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[The Raven]

I recall GD sending out press releases stating that if the US had the F-16
in WWII the Nazis would have crumpled in two days.

What I couldn't figure out is why two days? As soon as any enemy saw
something that technologically advanced flying around they'd surrender.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.


"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> We've had a couple scenarios of aircraft going back in
> time and speculation on what sort of effect they'd have.
>
> I just saw a show on the A-10 Warthog with a top speed
> of 420 mph. That's WWII fighter speeds (although I'm
> not certain at what altitude).
>
> Since an A-10 can carry something like 16,000 pounds of
> weapons, at the speeds it flies, it would be one hell of
> a WWII bomber. I'll bet even Art would ditch Willie in
> a second to fly such a machine.
>
> But what about as a fighter? Other than the extreme
> ruggedness of the aircraft, would it have been any good
> in fighter contests, especially in Europe, but in the
> Pacific as well?
>
> Seems the 30mm canon is a bit over kill for fighters.
> Probably just load it up with a bunch of 20mm canons
> in wings and as would fit in the nose.
>
> It wouldn't be much good taking over mustang escort
> duty since its range is only about 800 miles.
>
> The aircraft seems very maneuverable, but I have no clue
> how its roll rate, climb, dive and turn/stall performance
> compare with a late WWII fighter of German or Japanese
> pedigree.
>
> Could an A-10 hold its own, or best, an Me 109 or FW 190?
> An Oscar, Zero, Tony, Frank, whatever?
>
> No doubt the marines in the Pacific would love the A-10
> and the harrassed German ground transport would really
> take a thrashing if this aircraft showed up. But would
> the fighter opposition be quaking in their flight boots?
>
>
> SMH
>

[The Raven]

Forgot to mention that GD claimed only 2 x F-16s would have been
needed...........

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[Eunometic]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > The Mk103 had 140mm of penetration when firing tungsten cored
> > amunition from a FW190. From the faster jet it would have been
more.
> >
> >
>
> Of course not having any tungsten to spare this was
> rather academic
>

Tungsten shortage was a serious problem for the Germans as was nickel
(for jet engines and used only for hardening the superior armor of the
Tiger other tanks like Panther didn't get this metal)

Nevertheless the Germans had small amounts of tungsten cored
ammunition available for the 75mm, 88mm for the Tiger and Panther and
AT guns. These rounds were only rarely available but were useful
for dealing with the heaviest soviet tanks. Early in the war, when
tungsten was a little more common, it was the only way they could
penetrate the T34 with their undersized for the task 50mm canon. (It
was called arrow head ammunition)

Tungsten was reserved for use in Anti Tank rounds for the 37mm and
30mm airborne use. The 30mm round having the same penetration as the
37mm round.
This was 110mm but more like 140 with the forward motion of the
aircraft.

The primary and most important use of tungsten was for hardening
machine tools.

In one of your posts you noted that the Germans used uranium as a
substitute for tungsten in hardening machine tools. I wonder if they
might have used it to harden ammunition? It may even have led to the
use of Uranium cores by serendipity. The Germans had their own
indigenous uranium mines.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Eunometic" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > > The Mk103 had 140mm of penetration when firing tungsten cored
> > > amunition from a FW190. From the faster jet it would have been
> more.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Of course not having any tungsten to spare this was
> > rather academic
> >
>
> Tungsten shortage was a serious problem for the Germans as was nickel
> (for jet engines and used only for hardening the superior armor of the
> Tiger other tanks like Panther didn't get this metal)
>
> Nevertheless the Germans had small amounts of tungsten cored
> ammunition available for the 75mm, 88mm for the Tiger and Panther and
> AT guns. These rounds were only rarely available but were useful
> for dealing with the heaviest soviet tanks. Early in the war, when
> tungsten was a little more common, it was the only way they could
> penetrate the T34 with their undersized for the task 50mm canon. (It
> was called arrow head ammunition)
>
> Tungsten was reserved for use in Anti Tank rounds for the 37mm and
> 30mm airborne use. The 30mm round having the same penetration as the
> 37mm round.
> This was 110mm but more like 140 with the forward motion of the
> aircraft.
>
> The primary and most important use of tungsten was for hardening
> machine tools.
>
> In one of your posts you noted that the Germans used uranium as a
> substitute for tungsten in hardening machine tools. I wonder if they
> might have used it to harden ammunition? It may even have led to the
> use of Uranium cores by serendipity. The Germans had their own
> indigenous uranium mines.
>
>

Its possible, there was certainly no shortage of Uranium
as there were huge stocks in Belgium imported for
the extraction of Radium

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[The Enlightenment]

"The Raven" > wrote in message >...
> I recall GD sending out press releases stating that if the US had the F-16
> in WWII the Nazis would have crumpled in two days.
>
> What I couldn't figure out is why two days? As soon as any enemy saw
> something that technologically advanced flying around they'd surrender.
>

I expect that with 45 years of development as the well that the Nazis
might have come up with something a little more competitive than an
Me262 to take on the F16.

Note the best, if albeit most expensive F16, was the Japanese FS-X/F-2
which has in service an active array radar years before the the 24
seen on specialy equiped F15Ds.

[Emilio]

>It IS actually a stolen German design- a nameless Junkers Attack
Project which started in 1941.

Its true when I saw A-10 for the first time it had a look of German design.
Their R and D were looking in to many different designs. That's not to say
that they made it, and we stole it. Those aircraft design "ideas" were
around not only in Germany. And, as you may know "ideas" is not patent
able. One can't own an idea, however one can own specific method of
building things. If you give set of requirements to number of different
contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar.

Emilio.

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
>...
> > Few people know this, but the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German
design.
> > Sabotage at the factory and defeatist whiners kept the project from
flying
> > before VE Day, but in 20 years the original plans will be released by
the
> > military, clearly showing the RLM stamp in the upper left corner.
> >
> > I know its true because I read it on Venik's website.
> >
> > Gordon
>
> It IS actually a stolen German design- a nameless Junkers Attack
> Project which started in 1941.
> From "Luftwaffe Secret Projects, Ground Attack & Special-Purpose
> Aircraft" page 36:
> " In mid-1941 the Development Department of the Junkerswerke in Dessau
> commenced work on a project for a low-level and ground attack aircraft
> as a replacement for the Hs 129. The project study involved a rather
> plump-looking mid-wing aircraft with two wingroot-mounted turbojets.
> According to works documentation, the turbojets were to have been two
> Daimler-Benz 109-007 ZTL units which allowed a considerable increase
> in performance at a reduced fuel consumption. Designed by Prof Dr-Ing
> Karl Leist, head of the Abteilung Sondertriedwerk (Special Engines
> Department) at the Daimler-Benz AG, the two-circuit or bypass
> turbojets had a larger air intake and overall diameter than the
> single-circuit BMW 003 and Jumo 004 turbojets.
> Besides this new type of turbojet, strong armor plating was to have
> been provided for the fuselage and powerplants. As a ground attack
> aircraft, it was to have been equipped with four 30mm MK 103 and and
> four 20mm MG 151/20 cannon. The undercarriage main wheels were to
> retract forwards into the fuselage sides as shown in the three-view
> drawing. As litle experience had been gathered with nosewheels which
> for a long time had been rejected by the RLM as too " American", a
> retractable pneumatically-sprung skid replaced the nosewheel.
> The long gestation period of turbojet development at Daimler-Benz that
> resulted in the first turbojet test-bed runs only in March 1943, led
> to termination of the project. Several decades later, this project
> served as the forerunner for the US Fairchild A-10A Thunderbolt (also
> known as the Warthog) ground attack and low-level combat aircraft
> which cannot deny its resemblence to the nameless Junkers ground
> attack aircraft."
>
> On the next page is pictured the A-10, a three-view of the Junkers
> project, and both a schematic drawing and actual photo of the DB
> 109-007 turbojet on its engine test-bed. Accompanying note on the
> A-10:
>
> " A Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt prototype. Its similarity to the
> Junkers design scheme is UNMISTAKEABLE. The propulsion units, mounted
> in lateral fuselage nacelles were two General Electric TF 34-GE 100
> bypass turbojets..."
>
> As for the A-10s revolver cannon- so what? The Germans had a range of
> heavy Bordwaffe in development including the Duka 88. Even the A-10 in
> WW2 would have been downed if hit in the engines with that baby!
>
> Rob

[Paul F Austin]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > >
> > > > The Mk103 had 140mm of penetration when firing tungsten cored
> > > > amunition from a FW190. From the faster jet it would have been
> > more.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Of course not having any tungsten to spare this was
> > > rather academic
> > >
> >
> > Tungsten shortage was a serious problem for the Germans as was nickel
> > (for jet engines and used only for hardening the superior armor of the
> > Tiger other tanks like Panther didn't get this metal)
> >
> > Nevertheless the Germans had small amounts of tungsten cored
> > ammunition available for the 75mm, 88mm for the Tiger and Panther and
> > AT guns. These rounds were only rarely available but were useful
> > for dealing with the heaviest soviet tanks. Early in the war, when
> > tungsten was a little more common, it was the only way they could
> > penetrate the T34 with their undersized for the task 50mm canon. (It
> > was called arrow head ammunition)
> >
> > Tungsten was reserved for use in Anti Tank rounds for the 37mm and
> > 30mm airborne use. The 30mm round having the same penetration as the
> > 37mm round.
> > This was 110mm but more like 140 with the forward motion of the
> > aircraft.
> >
> > The primary and most important use of tungsten was for hardening
> > machine tools.
> >
> > In one of your posts you noted that the Germans used uranium as a
> > substitute for tungsten in hardening machine tools. I wonder if they
> > might have used it to harden ammunition? It may even have led to the
> > use of Uranium cores by serendipity. The Germans had their own
> > indigenous uranium mines.
> >
> >
>
> Its possible, there was certainly no shortage of Uranium
> as there were huge stocks in Belgium imported for
> the extraction of Radium

About 1200 tons according to Richard Rhodes. That's not huge stocks on the
scale of munitions manufacture, about half a million projectiles worth. A
lot, but not huge.

[Tamas Feher]

>If you give set of requirements to number of different
>contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar.

You mean:
Space Shuttle <-->Buran
Concorde <--> Tu-144
F-15 <--> MiG-25
Northrop A-9 <--> Szu-25
etc.

Spies 'r' us!

[Tamas Feher]

>the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German design.

Correction: a hungarian design from 1944.

Except for slightly W-shaped wing, the plane looked just like the A-10.
It was powered by two Jumo or BMW made 8kN turbines. It was 3/4th
completed, when the factory was overrun by the front. Supposedly the
plane's parts and drawings were captured by the USA and hauled overseas.

The three-view drawing of the plane was featured on the back cover of a
1976 copy of the hungarian monthly paper "Repules". It was quite unusual
for a communist state-run paper to feature a nazi plane at that time.

[Emilio]

From the list, Buran aero form was an exact copy of Space shuttle, thus they
stole it. But there propulsive design seems different to fit their launch
vehicles. That part is there design.

Going back to A-10, I will list the requirement and probable design.

Requirement:
1) Able to house VW size gun.
2) Ability to loiter
3) Good visibility for ground attack
4) 2 power plant for reliability
5) Large Ordinance capacity
6) Ability to land / take off from damaged runway.

Design to address requirements 1 and 3 may go like this:
The gun is too large to be housed on the wings so it must be located in the
fuselage. Where do you put the pilot; in front, on top or, in the back of
the VW? Pilot needs to be on top or in front to satisfy visibility
requirement. If you put him at the back he may be sitting right by the
wing, which can blocks large area of his view.

Design to address requirements 2 and 5:
The ordinance installation is easiest if it is mounted on the wing. Large
load requires large wing for the given airspeed. Loiter can be accomplished
by attempt to lower drag. High aspect ratio wing can accommodate both
requirements; long and skinny wing.

Design to address requirements 4 and 6:
We can mount the engine on the wing but that will take away ordinance space.
The engine needs some separation so the ground fire can't take them out both
at one time. Engine need to be some distance away from ground debris.
Where do you mount it?

What's you're A-10 design look like?

Emilio.

"Tamas Feher" > wrote in message
...
> >If you give set of requirements to number of different
> >contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar.
>
> You mean:
> Space Shuttle <-->Buran
> Concorde <--> Tu-144
> F-15 <--> MiG-25
> Northrop A-9 <--> Szu-25
> etc.
>
> Spies 'r' us!
>
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:52:53 +0200, "Tamas Feher"
> wrote:

>>If you give set of requirements to number of different
>>contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar.
>
>You mean:
>Space Shuttle <-->Buran


Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.



>Concorde <--> Tu-144

ISTR there was a question of espionage there.



>F-15 <--> MiG-25

About the only similarities there is they both have two vertical
tails, two engines, and ramp intakes. So does the Tomcat, Flanker,
Fulrum. And both the Vigilante and Rapier had ramp intakes and twin
engines before that.



>Northrop A-9 <--> Szu-25


And A-6 and F-89 and numerous others. I think it falls into the
category of "there's only so many ways to make a plane". It actually
resembles an F-4 more than it does the A-9



>etc.
>
>Spies 'r' us!
>


It seems to be rare that exact copies are ever done but copying
generalities happens all the time. For example LERXs/strakes were in
vogue for a while there.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:40:59 -0500, "Emilio" >
wrote:

>From the list, Buran aero form was an exact copy of Space shuttle, thus they
>stole it. But there propulsive design seems different to fit their launch
>vehicles. That part is there design.
>
>Going back to A-10, I will list the requirement and probable design.
>
>Requirement:
>1) Able to house VW size gun.
>2) Ability to loiter
>3) Good visibility for ground attack
>4) 2 power plant for reliability
>5) Large Ordinance capacity
>6) Ability to land / take off from damaged runway.
>
>Design to address requirements 1 and 3 may go like this:
>The gun is too large to be housed on the wings so it must be located in the
>fuselage. Where do you put the pilot; in front, on top or, in the back of
>the VW? Pilot needs to be on top or in front to satisfy visibility
>requirement. If you put him at the back he may be sitting right by the
>wing, which can blocks large area of his view.
>
>Design to address requirements 2 and 5:
>The ordinance installation is easiest if it is mounted on the wing. Large
>load requires large wing for the given airspeed. Loiter can be accomplished
>by attempt to lower drag. High aspect ratio wing can accommodate both
>requirements; long and skinny wing.
>
>Design to address requirements 4 and 6:
>We can mount the engine on the wing but that will take away ordinance space.
>The engine needs some separation so the ground fire can't take them out both
>at one time. Engine need to be some distance away from ground debris.
>Where do you mount it?
>
>What's you're A-10 design look like?
>
>Emilio.
>

Don't forget to add "your plane must be able to land gear-up and
extend it's gear with no power".

[Emilio]

>Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.

More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to
"copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply was not
setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If they
made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100 a
peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it
there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to
added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place.

Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.

Emilio.

<Scott Ferrin> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:52:53 +0200, "Tamas Feher"
> > wrote:
>
> >>If you give set of requirements to number of different
> >>contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar.
> >
> >You mean:
> >Space Shuttle <-->Buran
>
>
> Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.
>
>
>
> >Concorde <--> Tu-144
>
> ISTR there was a question of espionage there.
>
>
>
> >F-15 <--> MiG-25
>
> About the only similarities there is they both have two vertical
> tails, two engines, and ramp intakes. So does the Tomcat, Flanker,
> Fulrum. And both the Vigilante and Rapier had ramp intakes and twin
> engines before that.
>
>
>
> >Northrop A-9 <--> Szu-25
>
>
> And A-6 and F-89 and numerous others. I think it falls into the
> category of "there's only so many ways to make a plane". It actually
> resembles an F-4 more than it does the A-9
>
>
>
> >etc.
> >
> >Spies 'r' us!
> >
>
>
> It seems to be rare that exact copies are ever done but copying
> generalities happens all the time. For example LERXs/strakes were in
> vogue for a while there.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:23:25 -0500, "Emilio" >
wrote:

>>Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.
>
>More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to
>"copy" the shuttle and not the engineers.

No, they actually did a lot of testing and came to the conclusion that
they were duplicating all the studies NASA did so they decided to copy
it.


> Russian industry simply was not
>setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do.

I don't know about that. I think it's more outright stupidity than
anything nefarious when it comes to the dreaded $300 pliers etc. That
and a lack of understanding of the problem by those quoting the
numbers. The pliers make sense if you know what happened. It wasn't
a SMART thing to do but it does make sense. While taking a Cost
Estimating class in college the instructor related the pliers tale to
us. He was working for Boeing at the time and apparently the contract
said something to the effect of Boeing producing all the tooling for
the project and hey pliers are tools. So Boeing made like twelve
pairs of pliers or something. That and they weren't exactly the kind
you'd find at Home Depot. So a production run of 12 made by an
aerospace company. Is it any wonder they weren't eight bucks? That
story about the rivets related here on r.a.m. a while back though. . .
Makes you wonder how much the defense budget could buy if all of that
inefficency and waste could be eliminated. Would take a hell of an
audit to find it all though.



If they
>made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100 a
>peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it
>there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
>shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to
>added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place.
>
>Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.
>
>Emilio.

[John Mullen]

"Emilio" > wrote in message
...
> >Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.
>
> More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to
> "copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply was not
> setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If they
> made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100
a
> peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it
> there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
> shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to
> added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place.

Actually, it was a superior design to the STS it was copied from. Heavier
payload, more crew space and less rinky-dink stuff to blow up like the ET
and the SRBs.

> Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.

Buran: 1 unmanned flight, total success.

STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.

I'd say the Russians realised they had no need of a shuttle and quit while
they were ahead.

John

[Emilio]

Well, the $20 nuts and bolts come from all the paperwork that is attached to
it. Aerospace fastener and materials strength are carefully controlled;
much tighter spec then the commercially available fasteners; smaller run.
This certainty in the strength of material helps you to design light weight
aircraft and rockets. Uncertainty means, "We need to beef it up just in
case it fails!" Russian rockets were heavier because they used fastener and
materials from there local hardware store! They just beefed it up to make
sure it flew. Nothing is wrong with that approach, and their vehicles were
properly designed to account for the uncertainty.

It is not as simple as just copying the shuttle design. The design is based
on American philosophical thinking in design and in infrastructure.

Emilio.

<Scott Ferrin> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:23:25 -0500, "Emilio" >
> wrote:
>
> >>Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.
> >
> >More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to
> >"copy" the shuttle and not the engineers.
>
> No, they actually did a lot of testing and came to the conclusion that
> they were duplicating all the studies NASA did so they decided to copy
> it.
>
>
> > Russian industry simply was not
> >setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do.
>
> I don't know about that. I think it's more outright stupidity than
> anything nefarious when it comes to the dreaded $300 pliers etc. That
> and a lack of understanding of the problem by those quoting the
> numbers. The pliers make sense if you know what happened. It wasn't
> a SMART thing to do but it does make sense. While taking a Cost
> Estimating class in college the instructor related the pliers tale to
> us. He was working for Boeing at the time and apparently the contract
> said something to the effect of Boeing producing all the tooling for
> the project and hey pliers are tools. So Boeing made like twelve
> pairs of pliers or something. That and they weren't exactly the kind
> you'd find at Home Depot. So a production run of 12 made by an
> aerospace company. Is it any wonder they weren't eight bucks? That
> story about the rivets related here on r.a.m. a while back though. . .
> Makes you wonder how much the defense budget could buy if all of that
> inefficency and waste could be eliminated. Would take a hell of an
> audit to find it all though.
>
>
>
> If they
> >made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100
a
> >peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it
> >there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
> >shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to
> >added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place.
> >
> >Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.
> >
> >Emilio.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"John Mullen" > writes:
> "Emilio" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.
>>
>> More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided to
>> "copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply was not
>> setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If they
>> made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them $100
> a
>> peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build it
>> there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
>> shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do to
>> added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first place.
>
> Actually, it was a superior design to the STS it was copied from. Heavier
> payload, more crew space and less rinky-dink stuff to blow up like the ET
> and the SRBs.

Just teh Big Honkin' booster it was hooked to. Both configurations
have their advantages, and their risks.

>> Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.
>
> Buran: 1 unmanned flight, total success.

Not a total success - teh flight article was structurally damaged on
re-entry. I don't know if repair was possible.

> STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.

A hair over a 98% success rate, a bit better than Soyuz (Which also
had 2 fatal flights, with 100% crew loss on each, (But smaller crews),
and several launch aborts. And a number of nasty landing incidents.
There's no objective indication that the expendable Soyuz capsule is
any safer than the STS.

> I'd say the Russians realised they had no need of a shuttle and quit while
> they were ahead.

More like they couldn't afford it. Both Buran and Energia (The
booster)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Zamboni]

"Emilio" > wrote in message
...
> From the list, Buran aero form was an exact copy of Space shuttle, thus
they
> stole it. But there propulsive design seems different to fit their launch
> vehicles. That part is there design.
>
> Going back to A-10, I will list the requirement and probable design.
>
> Requirement:
> 1) Able to house VW size gun.
> 2) Ability to loiter
> 3) Good visibility for ground attack
> 4) 2 power plant for reliability
> 5) Large Ordinance capacity
> 6) Ability to land / take off from damaged runway.
>
> Design to address requirements 1 and 3 may go like this:
> The gun is too large to be housed on the wings so it must be located in
the
> fuselage. Where do you put the pilot; in front, on top or, in the back of
> the VW? Pilot needs to be on top or in front to satisfy visibility
> requirement. If you put him at the back he may be sitting right by the
> wing, which can blocks large area of his view.
>
> Design to address requirements 2 and 5:
> The ordinance installation is easiest if it is mounted on the wing. Large
> load requires large wing for the given airspeed. Loiter can be
accomplished
> by attempt to lower drag. High aspect ratio wing can accommodate both
> requirements; long and skinny wing.
>
> Design to address requirements 4 and 6:
> We can mount the engine on the wing but that will take away ordinance
space.
> The engine needs some separation so the ground fire can't take them out
both
> at one time. Engine need to be some distance away from ground debris.
> Where do you mount it?
>
> What's you're A-10 design look like?
>
Something like a BV-141?
--
Zamboni

[David E. Powell]

Actually, I recall hearing that when they designed the A-10, they had one of
the top German WW2 Stuka pilots as a consultant, he had specialised in
attacking (Mostly Soviet) tanks and held the record for tanks killed in the
war. Apparently they ran the design by him and asked him what a pilot with
such a mission would want in an airplane, as far as weapons, characteristics
in flight, etc.

[robert arndt]

"Tamas Feher" > wrote in message >...
> >the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German design.
>
> Correction: a hungarian design from 1944.
>
> Except for slightly W-shaped wing, the plane looked just like the A-10.
> It was powered by two Jumo or BMW made 8kN turbines. It was 3/4th
> completed, when the factory was overrun by the front. Supposedly the
> plane's parts and drawings were captured by the USA and hauled overseas.
>
> The three-view drawing of the plane was featured on the back cover of a
> 1976 copy of the hungarian monthly paper "Repules". It was quite unusual
> for a communist state-run paper to feature a nazi plane at that time.

.... when were US troops overrunning Hungary in 1945? The only attack
aircraft 3/4+ finished that was to use either a Jumo 004 or BMW 003
that was captured was the Hs-132. It bears no resemblence to the A-10
and is NOT of hungarian origin.
The only aircraft captured by the Luftwaffe in Hungary were Zlin
aircraft, most of which were gliders and obsolete types. What
Hungarian design are you refering to in the news article? AFAIK, no
German jet engines were destined for any Hungarian project. Only Italy
and Japan were to recieve those. Regianne never got theirs and the
Japanese IIRC only recieved photos and manuals from which they built
indigenous copies.

Rob

[Eunometic]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message >...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Eunometic" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > >
> > > > > The Mk103 had 140mm of penetration when firing tungsten cored
> > > > > amunition from a FW190. From the faster jet it would have
> > > > > been more.
> > > >
> > > > Of course not having any tungsten to spare this was
> > > > rather academic
> > >
> > > Tungsten shortage was a serious problem for the Germans as was nickel
> > > (for jet engines and used only for hardening the superior armor of the
> > > Tiger other tanks like Panther didn't get this metal)
> > >
> > > Nevertheless the Germans had small amounts of tungsten cored
> > > ammunition available for the 75mm, 88mm for the Tiger and Panther and
> > > AT guns. These rounds were only rarely available but were useful
> > > for dealing with the heaviest soviet tanks. Early in the war, when
> > > tungsten was a little more common, it was the only way they could
> > > penetrate the T34 with their undersized for the task 50mm canon. (It
> > > was called arrow head ammunition)
> > >
> > > Tungsten was reserved for use in Anti Tank rounds for the 37mm and
> > > 30mm airborne use. The 30mm round having the same penetration as the
> > > 37mm round. This was 110mm but more like 140 with the forward
> > > motion of the aircraft.
> > >
> > > The primary and most important use of tungsten was for hardening
> > > machine tools.
> > >
> > > In one of your posts you noted that the Germans used uranium as a
> > > substitute for tungsten in hardening machine tools. I wonder if they
> > > might have used it to harden ammunition? It may even have led to the
> > > use of Uranium cores by serendipity. The Germans had their own
> > > indigenous uranium mines.
> > >
> >
> > Its possible, there was certainly no shortage of Uranium
> > as there were huge stocks in Belgium imported for
> > the extraction of Radium
>
> About 1200 tons according to Richard Rhodes. That's not huge stocks on the
> scale of munitions manufacture, about half a million projectiles worth. A
> lot, but not huge.


I'm not sure exactly how much uranium is actualy used in the alloy.
The current alloy is called U3T4 and is uranium and 3/4% Titanium but
I believe early uranium cores had relatively low levels of DU. The
pure metal is in fact quite soft. So not all that much uranium would
have been necessary.

German engineers developed highly effective anti-tank ammunition using
sub-caliber tungsten carbide penetrators. A so called series of taper
bore or squeeze guns. Guns designed to fire this ammunition were much
lighter and more mobile than their Allied equivalents and were among
the most powerful anti-tank guns of the war, but shortages of tungsten
forced their abandonment in 1942 when the remaining amunition was used
up and the guns were scrapped however they did see service.

http://users.belgacom.net/artillery/artillerie/3958.html

The 75mm cartrige Krupp Pak 41 was able to outperform the British
76.2mm 17 pounder but at only 65% of the weight: 1.3 tons versus 2
tons.

The Germans had supplies from Austrian mines at least of Uranium and
almost had a world molopoly that squeezed the French out of the
Uranium market but for discoveries in her colonies and Portugual. The
French I believe had developed Uranium as a hardening alloys as early
as 1907 but were unscucesfull at marketing the product. (There is a
history of Uranium on the web) and the Germans were apparently using
it as a substitute for tungsten for some pusposes. (haven't been able
to confirm this). It just occured to me that they might have used
this to at least to harden normal AP capped amunition.

Taper bore guns don't seem to have continued development after the war
with larger caliber guns firing sabots being used presumably becuase
the could fire big explosive shells at infantry.

Interestingly the Tiger I was widely admired for its high velocity
guns abillity to fire both solid AT and high explosive amunition which
was apparently quite rare. Thye Sherman Firefly with its 17 pounder
still needed 2 conventional Shermans as escorts becuase this gun could
not fire explosive shells. But for the shortage of tungsten amunition
the Germans would have prefered a smaller tank with a taper bore gun
rather than the 88mm which needed the massive 55 ton Tiger I tank to
carry.

Given the look of the smaller german taper bore the sPB 41 F (28mm and
117 kg on its carriage) an aerial firing version would have made a
deadly tank killer.
It was less than half the weight and had 50% more penetration than the
37mm Pak 36.

[Eunometic]

(robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> "Tamas Feher" > wrote in message >...
> > >the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German design.
> >
> > Correction: a hungarian design from 1944.
> >
> > Except for slightly W-shaped wing, the plane looked just like the A-10.
> > It was powered by two Jumo or BMW made 8kN turbines. It was 3/4th
> > completed, when the factory was overrun by the front. Supposedly the
> > plane's parts and drawings were captured by the USA and hauled overseas.
> >
> > The three-view drawing of the plane was featured on the back cover of a
> > 1976 copy of the hungarian monthly paper "Repules". It was quite unusual
> > for a communist state-run paper to feature a nazi plane at that time.
>
> ... when were US troops overrunning Hungary in 1945? The only attack
> aircraft 3/4+ finished that was to use either a Jumo 004 or BMW 003
> that was captured was the Hs-132. It bears no resemblence to the A-10
> and is NOT of hungarian origin.
> The only aircraft captured by the Luftwaffe in Hungary were Zlin
> aircraft, most of which were gliders and obsolete types. What
> Hungarian design are you refering to in the news article? AFAIK, no
> German jet engines were destined for any Hungarian project. Only Italy
> and Japan were to recieve those. Regianne never got theirs and the
> Japanese IIRC only recieved photos and manuals from which they built
> indigenous copies.
>
> Rob

The Hungarians may have had their own indigneous project. Don't
forget they did have the worlds first turboprop in the 1930s. It
worked but had problems with the combustion chamber burn through.
Someting that could only be solved with hard work on the test stand or
good alloys.

[Alistair Gunn]

Eunometic twisted the electrons to say:
> Thye Sherman Firefly with its 17 pounder
> still needed 2 conventional Shermans as escorts becuase this gun could
> not fire explosive shells.

I think you'll find that the 17 pounder could fire high explosive rounds,
however the one available in WW2 was insufficiently reliable to issue.
In any case, it would be equally accurate to say that the "2 conventional
Shermans" needed the Firefly as an escort as their guns couldn't reliably
deal with the high end German armour ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[John Mullen]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "John Mullen" > writes:
> > "Emilio" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> >Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.
> >>
> >> More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided
to
> >> "copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply was
not
> >> setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If
they
> >> made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them
$100
> > a
> >> peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build
it
> >> there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
> >> shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do
to
> >> added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first
place.
> >
> > Actually, it was a superior design to the STS it was copied from.
Heavier
> > payload, more crew space and less rinky-dink stuff to blow up like the
ET
> > and the SRBs.
>
> Just teh Big Honkin' booster it was hooked to. Both configurations
> have their advantages, and their risks.

I can't think of any advantages to the STS's layout. What did you mean here?

> >> Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.
> >
> > Buran: 1 unmanned flight, total success.
>
> Not a total success - teh flight article was structurally damaged on
> re-entry. I don't know if repair was possible.

That is news to me. See for example:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm

'Buran was first moved to the launch pad on 23 October 1988. The launch
commission met on 26 October 1988 and set 29 October 06:23 Moscow time for
the first flight of the first Buran orbiter (Flight 1K1). 51 seconds before
the launch, when control of the countdown switched to automated systems, a
software problem led the computer program to abort the lift-off. The problem
was found to be due to late separation of a gyro update umbilical. The
software problem was rectified and the next attempt was set for 15 November
at 06:00 (03:00 GMT). Came the morning, the weather was snow flurries with
20 m/s winds. Launch abort criteria were 15 m/s. The launch director decided
to press ahead anyway. After 12 years of development everything went
perfectly. Buran, with a mass of 79.4 tonnes, separated from the Block Ts
core and entered a temporary orbit with a perigee of -11.2 km and apogee of
154.2 km. At apogee Burn executed a 66.6 m/s manoeuvre and entered a 251 km
x 263 km orbit of the earth. In the payload bay was the 7150 kg module 37KB
s/n 37071. 140 minutes into the flight retrofire was accomplished with a
total delta-v of 175 m/s. 206 minutes after launch, accompanied by Igor Volk
in a MiG-25 chase plane, Buran touched down at 260 km/hr in a 17 m/s
crosswind at the Jubilee runway, with a 1620 m landing rollout. The
completely automatic launch, orbital manoeuvre, deorbit, and precision
landing of an airliner-sized spaceplane on its very first flight was an
unprecedented accomplishment of which the Soviets were justifiably proud. It
completely vindicated the years of exhaustive ground and flight test that
had debugged the systems before they flew.'

Could you be mistaken? Or is this fairly new info? If the latter, I would be
interested in knowing your source.

> > STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.
>
> A hair over a 98% success rate, a bit better than Soyuz (Which also
> had 2 fatal flights, with 100% crew loss on each, (But smaller crews),
> and several launch aborts. And a number of nasty landing incidents.

Really? I cannot easily find a total for the number of Soyuz missions but
feel sure it must be way over the 100-odd of the STS. Do you have better
figures?

And to me the survivable aborts are an indication of the robustness of the
1960s design. The people on Challenger would have loved a surviveable abort
system. The people on Columbia would have loved merely to have suffered a
nasty landing incident.

(I never mentioned Soyuz btw!)

> There's no objective indication that the expendable Soyuz capsule is
> any safer than the STS.

Er.. how about the fact that the STS is currently grounded for safety
improvements after the last fatal crash? Leaving Soyuz as the world's only
manned orbital vehicle, other than the Chinese and maybe Bert Rutan!

>
> > I'd say the Russians realised they had no need of a shuttle and quit
while
> > they were ahead.
>
> More like they couldn't afford it. Both Buran and Energia (The
> booster)

Well sure. It is true that their country did collapse during the devlopment
of the Buran and Energia projects, leading to their cancellation. My point
was that this wasn't because they were inferior kit, quite the contrary.

John

[Kristan Roberge]

Tamas Feher wrote:

> >If you give set of requirements to number of different
> >contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar.
>
> You mean:
> Space Shuttle <-->Buran
> Concorde <--> Tu-144
> F-15 <--> MiG-25
> Northrop A-9 <--> Szu-25
> etc.
>
> Spies 'r' us!

Sepecat Jaguar <---> Mitsubishi T-2 / F-1 (explain that one while yer at
it)

[Kristan Roberge]

Scott Ferrin wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:40:59 -0500, "Emilio" >
> wrote:
>
> >From the list, Buran aero form was an exact copy of Space shuttle, thus they
> >stole it. But there propulsive design seems different to fit their launch
> >vehicles. That part is there design.
> >
> >Going back to A-10, I will list the requirement and probable design.
> >
> >Requirement:
> >1) Able to house VW size gun.
> >2) Ability to loiter
> >3) Good visibility for ground attack
> >4) 2 power plant for reliability
> >5) Large Ordinance capacity
> >6) Ability to land / take off from damaged runway.
> >
> >Design to address requirements 1 and 3 may go like this:
> >The gun is too large to be housed on the wings so it must be located in the
> >fuselage. Where do you put the pilot; in front, on top or, in the back of
> >the VW? Pilot needs to be on top or in front to satisfy visibility
> >requirement. If you put him at the back he may be sitting right by the
> >wing, which can blocks large area of his view.
> >
> >Design to address requirements 2 and 5:
> >The ordinance installation is easiest if it is mounted on the wing. Large
> >load requires large wing for the given airspeed. Loiter can be accomplished
> >by attempt to lower drag. High aspect ratio wing can accommodate both
> >requirements; long and skinny wing.
> >
> >Design to address requirements 4 and 6:
> >We can mount the engine on the wing but that will take away ordinance space.
> >The engine needs some separation so the ground fire can't take them out both
> >at one time. Engine need to be some distance away from ground debris.
> >Where do you mount it?
> >
> >What's you're A-10 design look like?
> >
> >Emilio.
> >
>
> Don't forget to add "your plane must be able to land gear-up and
> extend it's gear with no power".

Well landing with gear up... hmmmm...oh i know, let's semi-expose them into the
airflow below the wing... like on a freaking DC-3 !!!

Extend with no power? Geee.... ya think if you balance the weights right, that
gravity and airflow might pull the suckers down.

[Kristan Roberge]

Eunometic wrote:

> (robert arndt) wrote in message >...
> > "Tamas Feher" > wrote in message >...
> > > >the A-10 is actually a stolen WWII German design.
> > >
> > > Correction: a hungarian design from 1944.
> > >
> > > Except for slightly W-shaped wing, the plane looked just like the A-10.
> > > It was powered by two Jumo or BMW made 8kN turbines. It was 3/4th
> > > completed, when the factory was overrun by the front. Supposedly the
> > > plane's parts and drawings were captured by the USA and hauled overseas.
> > >
> > > The three-view drawing of the plane was featured on the back cover of a
> > > 1976 copy of the hungarian monthly paper "Repules". It was quite unusual
> > > for a communist state-run paper to feature a nazi plane at that time.
> >
> > ... when were US troops overrunning Hungary in 1945? The only attack
> > aircraft 3/4+ finished that was to use either a Jumo 004 or BMW 003
> > that was captured was the Hs-132. It bears no resemblence to the A-10
> > and is NOT of hungarian origin.
> > The only aircraft captured by the Luftwaffe in Hungary were Zlin
> > aircraft, most of which were gliders and obsolete types. What
> > Hungarian design are you refering to in the news article? AFAIK, no
> > German jet engines were destined for any Hungarian project. Only Italy
> > and Japan were to recieve those. Regianne never got theirs and the
> > Japanese IIRC only recieved photos and manuals from which they built
> > indigenous copies.
> >
> > Rob
>
> The Hungarians may have had their own indigneous project. Don't
> forget they did have the worlds first turboprop in the 1930s. It
> worked but had problems with the combustion chamber burn through.
> Someting that could only be solved with hard work on the test stand or
> good alloys.

And which turboprop would that be? My understanding is the british did it first, and it
was in the 1940s.

[David E. Powell]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "John Mullen" > writes:
> > > "Emilio" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> >Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.
> > >>
> > >> More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided
> to
> > >> "copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply
was
> not
> > >> setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If
> they
> > >> made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them
> $100
> > > a
> > >> peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to
build
> it
> > >> there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
> > >> shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do
> to
> > >> added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first
> place.
> > >
> > > Actually, it was a superior design to the STS it was copied from.
> Heavier
> > > payload, more crew space and less rinky-dink stuff to blow up like the
> ET
> > > and the SRBs.
> >
> > Just teh Big Honkin' booster it was hooked to. Both configurations
> > have their advantages, and their risks.
>
> I can't think of any advantages to the STS's layout. What did you mean
here?
>
> > >> Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.
> > >
> > > Buran: 1 unmanned flight, total success.
> >
> > Not a total success - teh flight article was structurally damaged on
> > re-entry. I don't know if repair was possible.
>
> That is news to me. See for example:
>
> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm
>
> 'Buran was first moved to the launch pad on 23 October 1988. The launch
> commission met on 26 October 1988 and set 29 October 06:23 Moscow time for
> the first flight of the first Buran orbiter (Flight 1K1). 51 seconds
before
> the launch, when control of the countdown switched to automated systems, a
> software problem led the computer program to abort the lift-off. The
problem
> was found to be due to late separation of a gyro update umbilical. The
> software problem was rectified and the next attempt was set for 15
November
> at 06:00 (03:00 GMT). Came the morning, the weather was snow flurries with
> 20 m/s winds. Launch abort criteria were 15 m/s. The launch director
decided
> to press ahead anyway. After 12 years of development everything went
> perfectly. Buran, with a mass of 79.4 tonnes, separated from the Block Ts
> core and entered a temporary orbit with a perigee of -11.2 km and apogee
of
> 154.2 km. At apogee Burn executed a 66.6 m/s manoeuvre and entered a 251
km
> x 263 km orbit of the earth. In the payload bay was the 7150 kg module
37KB
> s/n 37071. 140 minutes into the flight retrofire was accomplished with a
> total delta-v of 175 m/s. 206 minutes after launch, accompanied by Igor
Volk
> in a MiG-25 chase plane, Buran touched down at 260 km/hr in a 17 m/s
> crosswind at the Jubilee runway, with a 1620 m landing rollout. The
> completely automatic launch, orbital manoeuvre, deorbit, and precision
> landing of an airliner-sized spaceplane on its very first flight was an
> unprecedented accomplishment of which the Soviets were justifiably proud.
It
> completely vindicated the years of exhaustive ground and flight test that
> had debugged the systems before they flew.'
>
> Could you be mistaken? Or is this fairly new info? If the latter, I would
be
> interested in knowing your source.

Well, that was one, unmanned flight. Vs. numerous ones in shuttles that aged
over time, flew in different weather conditions, etc.

Challenger was done in partly by low temperature at launch, and the foam
that hit Columbia came off the external tank, Buran also has an external
booster unit in a similar location, strapped to the belly. Both accidents
happened after numerous successes. One cannot know Buran's true odds as one
for one is 100 percent. Like a batter hitting 1000 after two at bats, will
he still be batting 1000 at the middle of the season?

> > > STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.
> >
> > A hair over a 98% success rate, a bit better than Soyuz (Which also
> > had 2 fatal flights, with 100% crew loss on each, (But smaller crews),
> > and several launch aborts. And a number of nasty landing incidents.
>
> Really? I cannot easily find a total for the number of Soyuz missions but
> feel sure it must be way over the 100-odd of the STS. Do you have better
> figures?

Well there was that time one decompressed while still at very high altitude
during a landing. Not sure about others, but then again there are still
rumors that not all the Soviet era space stuff has come out as yet,
accidents, etc.

> And to me the survivable aborts are an indication of the robustness of the
> 1960s design. The people on Challenger would have loved a surviveable
abort
> system. The people on Columbia would have loved merely to have suffered a
> nasty landing incident.

Well nobody ever flew on Buran to find out I guess. As for Challenger, any
survivable system under those circumstances, or in Columbia's
disintegration, would have had to be a heck of a system. The forces involved
in both cases were literally unimaginable. I am not sure if Buran could have
survived either disaster, or how she could have fared with her own mechanics
over time. Nobody can know that, I suppose.

Columbia's loss was from such a hit that I cannot be sure if any wing built
could have survived, with that kind of glide path and loss of heat
shielding. Is there any information on what Buran's heating characteristics
and glide path were intended to be, or recorded as during her flight?

> (I never mentioned Soyuz btw!)
>
> > There's no objective indication that the expendable Soyuz capsule is
> > any safer than the STS.
>
> Er.. how about the fact that the STS is currently grounded for safety
> improvements after the last fatal crash? Leaving Soyuz as the world's only
> manned orbital vehicle, other than the Chinese and maybe Bert Rutan!

Burt. Like Burt "The Bandit" Reynolds. Plus Soyux has her own history, as I
mentioned.

> > > I'd say the Russians realised they had no need of a shuttle and quit
> while
> > > they were ahead.
> >
> > More like they couldn't afford it. Both Buran and Energia (The
> > booster)
>
> Well sure. It is true that their country did collapse during the
devlopment
> of the Buran and Energia projects, leading to their cancellation. My point
> was that this wasn't because they were inferior kit, quite the contrary.

I am certain they were fine peices of equipment, but I would run one down at
the expense of the other. Energia is a fine piece of equipment - do they
still make them? Be the thing to get a Mars craft up there to orbit for
assembly.

> John

[Kristan Roberge]

"David E. Powell" wrote:

> "John Mullen" > wrote in message

> > And to me the survivable aborts are an indication of the robustness of the
> > 1960s design. The people on Challenger would have loved a surviveable
> abort
> > system. The people on Columbia would have loved merely to have suffered a
> > nasty landing incident.
>
> Well nobody ever flew on Buran to find out I guess. As for Challenger, any
> survivable system under those circumstances, or in Columbia's
> disintegration, would have had to be a heck of a system. The forces involved
> in both cases were literally unimaginable. I am not sure if Buran could have
> survived either disaster, or how she could have fared with her own mechanics
> over time. Nobody can know that, I suppose.

Well columbia's solution would have been to park to the ISS and stay there until
NASA
can get their arse in gear and rush another orbiter into orbit...

As to Challenger, my understanding of post accident investigations were that the
crew were pretty
much all recovered together, and still strapped to their seats in the cabin, and
that they may
have still been alive post explosion (though unconscious). An ejection seat
system that could have blown them clear
of the crew compartment in such a major system failure would possible have been
useful. Remember Columbia
originally flew with ejection seats for pilot and commander. It would not have
been impossible to design the orbiters
with ejection seats for all crew members (just need to design the deck panels to
blow away before the folks
on the lower level go rocketing upwards into the ceiling).

[Alistair Gunn]

Kristan Roberge twisted the electrons to say:
> Well columbia's solution would have been to park to the ISS and stay
> there until NASA can get their arse in gear and rush another orbiter
> into orbit...

.... and where does Columbia find the fuel to do this?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

[John Mullen]

"Alistair Gunn" > wrote in message
. ..
> Kristan Roberge twisted the electrons to say:
> > Well columbia's solution would have been to park to the ISS and stay
> > there until NASA can get their arse in gear and rush another orbiter
> > into orbit...
>
> ... and where does Columbia find the fuel to do this?

Yes, this was emphatically not a possibilty...

John

[Robert]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:25:05 GMT, Kristan Roberge
> wrote:

>
>
>Tamas Feher wrote:
>
>> >If you give set of requirements to number of different
>> >contractors, the end result comes up to be very similar.
>>
>> You mean:
>> Space Shuttle <-->Buran
>> Concorde <--> Tu-144
>> F-15 <--> MiG-25
>> Northrop A-9 <--> Szu-25
>> etc.
>>
>> Spies 'r' us!
>
>Sepecat Jaguar <---> Mitsubishi T-2 / F-1 (explain that one while yer at
>it)
>
>
>

Here ya go:
http://www.vectorsite.net/avt2f1.html

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 04:28:39 GMT, Kristan Roberge
> wrote:

>
>
>Scott Ferrin wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:40:59 -0500, "Emilio" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >From the list, Buran aero form was an exact copy of Space shuttle, thus they
>> >stole it. But there propulsive design seems different to fit their launch
>> >vehicles. That part is there design.
>> >
>> >Going back to A-10, I will list the requirement and probable design.
>> >
>> >Requirement:
>> >1) Able to house VW size gun.
>> >2) Ability to loiter
>> >3) Good visibility for ground attack
>> >4) 2 power plant for reliability
>> >5) Large Ordinance capacity
>> >6) Ability to land / take off from damaged runway.
>> >
>> >Design to address requirements 1 and 3 may go like this:
>> >The gun is too large to be housed on the wings so it must be located in the
>> >fuselage. Where do you put the pilot; in front, on top or, in the back of
>> >the VW? Pilot needs to be on top or in front to satisfy visibility
>> >requirement. If you put him at the back he may be sitting right by the
>> >wing, which can blocks large area of his view.
>> >
>> >Design to address requirements 2 and 5:
>> >The ordinance installation is easiest if it is mounted on the wing. Large
>> >load requires large wing for the given airspeed. Loiter can be accomplished
>> >by attempt to lower drag. High aspect ratio wing can accommodate both
>> >requirements; long and skinny wing.
>> >
>> >Design to address requirements 4 and 6:
>> >We can mount the engine on the wing but that will take away ordinance space.
>> >The engine needs some separation so the ground fire can't take them out both
>> >at one time. Engine need to be some distance away from ground debris.
>> >Where do you mount it?
>> >
>> >What's you're A-10 design look like?
>> >
>> >Emilio.
>> >
>>
>> Don't forget to add "your plane must be able to land gear-up and
>> extend it's gear with no power".
>
>Well landing with gear up... hmmmm...oh i know, let's semi-expose them into the
>airflow below the wing... like on a freaking DC-3 !!!
>
>Extend with no power? Geee.... ya think if you balance the weights right, that
>gravity and airflow might pull the suckers down.

If it were that simple they'd all do it. They don't. Requiring the
wind to lock your gear out pretty much necessitates forward retracting
gear which limits your options. Gee ya think you'd have known that.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Kristan Roberge > wrote:

> As to Challenger, my understanding of post accident investigations were that
> the crew were pretty
> much all recovered together, and still strapped to their seats in the cabin,
> and that they may
> have still been alive post explosion (though unconscious). An ejection seat
> system that could have blown them clear
> of the crew compartment in such a major system failure would possible have
> been useful.

So much for any useful payload...

[John Mullen]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Kristan Roberge > wrote:
>
> > As to Challenger, my understanding of post accident investigations were
that
> > the crew were pretty
> > much all recovered together, and still strapped to their seats in the
cabin,
> > and that they may
> > have still been alive post explosion (though unconscious). An ejection
seat
> > system that could have blown them clear
> > of the crew compartment in such a major system failure would possible
have
> > been useful.
>
> So much for any useful payload...

Yeah, seven ejector seats would not have worked.

On the other hand, it is mind-boggling that they had not even given any
thought to the possibility of abandoning it in flight...

It is at least possible that simple parachutes and a bail-out pole might
have saved them, such as are now installed.

John

[robert arndt]

> > The Hungarians may have had their own indigneous project. Don't
> > forget they did have the worlds first turboprop in the 1930s. It
> > worked but had problems with the combustion chamber burn through.
> > Someting that could only be solved with hard work on the test stand or
> > good alloys.
>
> And which turboprop would that be? My understanding is the british did it first, and it
> was in the 1940s.

The Jendrassic CS-1 designed in 1938 and tested in August 1940. The
war stopped its production even though a specific aircraft was
designed to fly with it- the Hungarian RMI-1 X/H which was fitted with
DB engines instead and destroyed in a bombing raid.

Rob

[John Mullen]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
s.com...

(snip)

> Well, that was one, unmanned flight. Vs. numerous ones in shuttles that
aged
> over time, flew in different weather conditions, etc.
>
> Challenger was done in partly by low temperature at launch, and the foam
> that hit Columbia came off the external tank, Buran also has an external
> booster unit in a similar location, strapped to the belly. Both accidents
> happened after numerous successes. One cannot know Buran's true odds as
one
> for one is 100 percent. Like a batter hitting 1000 after two at bats, will
> he still be batting 1000 at the middle of the season?

Challenger was killed by a SRB letting go. Buran-Energia had no SRB's.

Columbia was killed by foam insulation falling off an ET and hitting a wing.
I do not think this could happen in the Buran-Energia setup, looking at how
they are oriented.

> > > > STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.
> > >
> > > A hair over a 98% success rate, a bit better than Soyuz (Which also
> > > had 2 fatal flights, with 100% crew loss on each, (But smaller crews),
> > > and several launch aborts. And a number of nasty landing incidents.
> >
> > Really? I cannot easily find a total for the number of Soyuz missions
but
> > feel sure it must be way over the 100-odd of the STS. Do you have better
> > figures?
>
> Well there was that time one decompressed while still at very high
altitude
> during a landing. Not sure about others, but then again there are still
> rumors that not all the Soviet era space stuff has come out as yet,
> accidents, etc.

AFAIK there were only the two well-documented Soyuz losses, one
decompression and one parachute failure. All the Soviet era accidents can be
safely assumed to have come out I would say.

> > And to me the survivable aborts are an indication of the robustness of
the
> > 1960s design. The people on Challenger would have loved a surviveable
> abort
> > system. The people on Columbia would have loved merely to have suffered
a
> > nasty landing incident.
>
> Well nobody ever flew on Buran to find out I guess. As for Challenger, any
> survivable system under those circumstances, or in Columbia's
> disintegration, would have had to be a heck of a system. The forces
involved
> in both cases were literally unimaginable. I am not sure if Buran could
have
> survived either disaster, or how she could have fared with her own
mechanics
> over time. Nobody can know that, I suppose.

As I have said above, I do not think Buran would have been susceptible to
either disaster in the first place.

Both were consequences of the poor design of the STS in the first place, and
of breathtaking complacency within NASA about safety.

> Columbia's loss was from such a hit that I cannot be sure if any wing
built
> could have survived, with that kind of glide path and loss of heat
> shielding. Is there any information on what Buran's heating
characteristics
> and glide path were intended to be, or recorded as during her flight?

(snip)

> I am certain they were fine peices of equipment, but I would run one down
at
> the expense of the other. Energia is a fine piece of equipment - do they
> still make them? Be the thing to get a Mars craft up there to orbit for
> assembly.

It certainly would. AFAIK they are finished like the Buran.

John

[David E. Powell]

One of the big reasons that "squeeze bore" guns were abandoned was barrel
wear from the intense pressure and velocity. Not only projectile
composition, but barrel composition, were issues. When one considers the
friction increase inherent in the design one can see why. Also I wonder how
the accuracy was.... also accuracy from shot to shot.

As for the talk of Allied/Western cannon effectiveness, yeah, the Panther
and Tiger were some sick tanks as far as their armor and guns. Though the
Germans found themselves outproduced on both fronts.... one of the reasons
that antitank planes were important in WW2. The Stuka was the big one for
Germany, as were a couple others they designed (Didn't Kurt Tank design
one?) The Russians had the Il-2 Sturmovik and the Pe-4 Bomber(?) with twin
engines, and the P-39/P-69 series. Lots of use of heavy cannons on all those
planes vs. tanks and troops, I believe. Did western antitank planes rely
more on bombs and rockets? (Outside the P-39 of course?)

DEP

[David E. Powell]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> "David E. Powell" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>
> (snip)
>
> > Well, that was one, unmanned flight. Vs. numerous ones in shuttles that
> aged
> > over time, flew in different weather conditions, etc.
> >
> > Challenger was done in partly by low temperature at launch, and the foam
> > that hit Columbia came off the external tank, Buran also has an
external
> > booster unit in a similar location, strapped to the belly. Both
accidents
> > happened after numerous successes. One cannot know Buran's true odds as
> one
> > for one is 100 percent. Like a batter hitting 1000 after two at bats,
will
> > he still be batting 1000 at the middle of the season?
>
> Challenger was killed by a SRB letting go. Buran-Energia had no SRB's.

Sir, Energia was a gigantic booster. Solid or liquid there is room for error
in each.

> Columbia was killed by foam insulation falling off an ET and hitting a
wing.
> I do not think this could happen in the Buran-Energia setup, looking at
how
> they are oriented.

How so? I felt they were more or less similar, shuttle riding the
booster/fuel section, the Energia for Buran and the SRBs/Tank for the NASA
shuttle.

> > > > > STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.
> > > >
> > > > A hair over a 98% success rate, a bit better than Soyuz (Which also
> > > > had 2 fatal flights, with 100% crew loss on each, (But smaller
crews),
> > > > and several launch aborts. And a number of nasty landing incidents.
> > >
> > > Really? I cannot easily find a total for the number of Soyuz missions
> but
> > > feel sure it must be way over the 100-odd of the STS. Do you have
better
> > > figures?
> >
> > Well there was that time one decompressed while still at very high
> altitude
> > during a landing. Not sure about others, but then again there are still
> > rumors that not all the Soviet era space stuff has come out as yet,
> > accidents, etc.
>
> AFAIK there were only the two well-documented Soyuz losses, one
> decompression and one parachute failure. All the Soviet era accidents can
be
> safely assumed to have come out I would say.

There is still the contorversy over whether another fellow went up before
Gagarin, though....

> > > And to me the survivable aborts are an indication of the robustness of
> the
> > > 1960s design. The people on Challenger would have loved a surviveable
> > abort
> > > system. The people on Columbia would have loved merely to have
suffered
> a
> > > nasty landing incident.
> >
> > Well nobody ever flew on Buran to find out I guess. As for Challenger,
any
> > survivable system under those circumstances, or in Columbia's
> > disintegration, would have had to be a heck of a system. The forces
> involved
> > in both cases were literally unimaginable. I am not sure if Buran could
> have
> > survived either disaster, or how she could have fared with her own
> mechanics
> > over time. Nobody can know that, I suppose.
>
> As I have said above, I do not think Buran would have been susceptible to
> either disaster in the first place.

You are entitled to your opinion, but if there was some sort of insulator on
sections of Energia, and if the tank on Energia contained fuel and booster
units, the possibility IMO exosted for failures simply because similar
things were present. The composition of the foam and performance under
different conditions and the performance of Energia may not have as much
available data as those of the shuttle, and the question of possible
failures in Buran over time are hard to plot out from the one flight. I do
hope it was a sound ship, it is just toguh to look at it all now compared to
another system's record over years of flights, reuse cycles, weather
conditions, foam changes, etc.

> Both were consequences of the poor design of the STS in the first place,
and
> of breathtaking complacency within NASA about safety.

The foam thing really gets me, I cannot see the reason it was changed if the
old foam was fine. I know the envoronment matters, but the science being
dealt with is also important, and the tank either orbits or burns up in the
high atmosphere anyway.

> > Columbia's loss was from such a hit that I cannot be sure if any wing
> built
> > could have survived, with that kind of glide path and loss of heat
> > shielding. Is there any information on what Buran's heating
> characteristics
> > and glide path were intended to be, or recorded as during her flight?
>
> (snip)
>
> > I am certain they were fine peices of equipment, but I would run one
down
> at
> > the expense of the other. Energia is a fine piece of equipment - do they
> > still make them? Be the thing to get a Mars craft up there to orbit for
> > assembly.
>
> It certainly would. AFAIK they are finished like the Buran.

That's sad. In the early 1990s I recall hearing mention of their possible
use a space station or large vessel component boosters. Very powerful
rocket....

> John

[Stephen FPilot Bierce]

"David E. Powell" > wrote:

>Did western antitank planes rely
>more on bombs and rockets? (Outside the P-39 of course?)
>
>DEP

Of course not. There were upgunned Hurricanes, and numerous fighters and light
and medium bombers outfitted as strafers/gunships. The 37mm gun on the
Airacobra/Kingcobra was a contraversial weapon to the Americans (some pilots
liked it and many didn't), and it was generally thought that anything bigger
than 20mm on a combat airplane was effete. Perhaps it was more of a logistics
issue than anything else...since the .50 caliber machine gun seemed to be
adequate in a general-purpose sense, why upgrade?

The Allies (in particular the Americans) never fielded a specifically anti-armor
airplane in spite of going through dozens of designs. Simply fitting bomb racks
and rocket rails on a day fighter--or packing extra machine guns on a medium
bomber--made more sense from a production standpoint than having a specialized
type created and put into action.

Allied wartime CAS thinking ultimately resulted in the Douglas Skyraider. We'll
never know what a plane like that would have done on the Western Front, but to
me it would have done what the Thunderbolt, Typhoon, Tempest, Beaufighter,
Mosquito and Mustang did...and more of it.

Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
{Sig Quotes Removed on Request}

[Kristan Roberge]

Alistair Gunn wrote:

> Kristan Roberge twisted the electrons to say:
> > Well columbia's solution would have been to park to the ISS and stay
> > there until NASA can get their arse in gear and rush another orbiter
> > into orbit...
>
> ... and where does Columbia find the fuel to do this?

there's no rule that says you have to RUSH to a higher orbit.

[Thomas Schoene]

Kristan Roberge wrote:
> Alistair Gunn wrote:
>
>> Kristan Roberge twisted the electrons to say:
>>> Well columbia's solution would have been to park to the ISS and stay
>>> there until NASA can get their arse in gear and rush another orbiter
>>> into orbit...
>>
>> ... and where does Columbia find the fuel to do this?
>
> there's no rule that says you have to RUSH to a higher orbit.

Delta-v is delta-v, and Columbia didn't have enough to get to ISS, period.
The speed of the proposed manuver is irrelevant. To go from Columbia's
original orbital inclination to the orbital inclination of the ISS would
have demanded a plane-change maneuver requiring far more fuel than the
shuttle's Orbital Maneuvering System carries (at least 4 times as much,
fuel, as it happens).

This proposal has of course come up before, and George Herbert was kind
enough to do the math:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1lafg%24krs%241%40gw.retro.com&output=gplain
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[Matt Wiser]

(Stephen "FPilot" Bierce) wrote:
>"David E. Powell" >
>wrote:
>
>>Did western antitank planes rely
>>more on bombs and rockets? (Outside the P-39
>of course?)
>>
>>DEP
>
>Of course not. There were upgunned Hurricanes,
>and numerous fighters and light
>and medium bombers outfitted as strafers/gunships.
> The 37mm gun on the
>Airacobra/Kingcobra was a contraversial weapon
>to the Americans (some pilots
>liked it and many didn't), and it was generally
>thought that anything bigger
>than 20mm on a combat airplane was effete.
>Perhaps it was more of a logistics
>issue than anything else...since the .50 caliber
>machine gun seemed to be
>adequate in a general-purpose sense, why upgrade?
>
>The Allies (in particular the Americans) never
>fielded a specifically anti-armor
>airplane in spite of going through dozens of
>designs. Simply fitting bomb racks
>and rocket rails on a day fighter--or packing
>extra machine guns on a medium
>bomber--made more sense from a production standpoint
>than having a specialized
>type created and put into action.
>
>Allied wartime CAS thinking ultimately resulted
>in the Douglas Skyraider. We'll
>never know what a plane like that would have
>done on the Western Front, but to
>me it would have done what the Thunderbolt,
>Typhoon, Tempest, Beaufighter,
>Mosquito and Mustang did...and more of it.
>
>Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
>{Sig Quotes Removed on Request}
First appearance of the Skyraider would have been early '46, just in time
for CORONET; the invasion of the Kanto Plain after OLYMPIC (the invasion
of Southern Kyushu).

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Eunometic]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message >...
> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Kristan Roberge > wrote:
> >
> > > As to Challenger, my understanding of post accident
> > > investigations were that the crew were pretty much
> > > all recovered together, and still strapped to their seats
> > > in the cabin, and that they may have still been alive
> > > post explosion (though unconscious). An ejection
> > > seat system that could have blown them clear
> > > of the crew compartment in such a major system failure would possible
> > > have been useful.
> >
> > So much for any useful payload...
>
> Yeah, seven ejector seats would not have worked.
>
> On the other hand, it is mind-boggling that they had not even given any
> thought to the possibility of abandoning it in flight...
>
> It is at least possible that simple parachutes and a bail-out pole might
> have saved them, such as are now installed.
>
> John

The US had a series of clamshell ejection seats for the B58 Hustler,
XB70 Valkyrie and X15 that could handle Mach 5.5. They worked to.
Plans for even more capable ejection seats based on this series were
afoot. Surely these would have saved the crew?

The Gemini Style ejection seats of the Gemini Capsule and SR71 handled
in excess of Mach 3.

The EGRESS system based on these clamshell seats added a heat shield
to the rear and was capable fo full re-entry from orbit. It is
difficult to imagine the seat not managing most situations except a
very rapid disintegration.

This is EGRESS:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/egress.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/rescue.htm

The lack of ejections seats on the shuttle was purely an economic one:
it allowed either more crew or more payload.

[Eunometic]

(Stephen "FPilot" Bierce) wrote in message >...
> "David E. Powell" > wrote:
>
> >Did western antitank planes rely
> >more on bombs and rockets? (Outside the P-39 of course?)
> >
> >DEP
>
> Of course not. There were upgunned Hurricanes, and numerous fighters
> and light and medium bombers outfitted as strafers/gunships.
> The 37mm gun on the Airacobra/Kingcobra was a contraversial weapon
> to the Americans (some pilots liked it and many didn't), and it was
> generally thought that anything bigger than 20mm on a combat
> airplane was effete.

This weapon was a fairly low velocity weapon I believe.

> Perhaps it was more of a logistics
> issue than anything else...since the .50 caliber machine gun seemed to be
> adequate in a general-purpose sense, why upgrade?

The Western Allies seem to have had pretty rotten anti-armour weapons.
They only had small number of the 76.2mm/17 pounder AT guns and
relied on heavy and clumsy howtizers to stop a Panther or Tiger, The
Kill ratio of Sherman versus Panther was 5:1, the 66mm bazooka was so
ineffective against a German MBT and even lighter tanks that the
troops relied on captured Pazerfaust and 76.8mm Panzerschreck, The
British PIAT was as usefull as a Medieval crossbow and even harder to
load, while the rocket firing typhoons, Tempests and Thunderbolts
Generaly missed their targets as latter analysis showed. (Less than
5% of tank kills were infact tank kills)

Hans Rudel, himself detroyer of Some 350 tanks in Stukas and FW190s
had a low opinion of rocket firing aircraft for anti-tank duty.

Most German tanks simply ran out of fuel and ammo. The power of the
allied fighter bombers of Jabo's was that they seem to have destroyed
German logistics, support and supply vehicles.

If there was a breakthrough by the minimal number of German tanks it
was dealt with by simply by overwheming numbers of Allied tanks and I
expect of a tank is attcked often enough by enough aircraft the
rockets might strik home.

The 0.5 inch machine gun certainly was a powefull weapon. Firing
tungsten cored ammunition with the extra forward motion of the aicraft
it must have had good penetration. Aginst an MBT it might acheive a
mobillity kill against radiators etc of suspension components. Against
thin skined or lightly armoured vehicles it must have penetrated often
enough.


>
> The Allies (in particular the Americans) never fielded a specifically anti-armor
> airplane in spite of going through dozens of designs. Simply fitting bomb racks
> and rocket rails on a day fighter--or packing extra machine guns on a medium
> bomber--made more sense from a production standpoint than having a specialized
> type created and put into action.
>
> Allied wartime CAS thinking ultimately resulted in the Douglas Skyraider. We'll
> never know what a plane like that would have done on the Western Front, but to
> me it would have done what the Thunderbolt, Typhoon, Tempest, Beaufighter,
> Mosquito and Mustang did...and more of it.
>
> Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
> {Sig Quotes Removed on Request}

It seems that allied thinking relied on modified fighter aircraft and
massive numerical superiority to overcome their lack of heavy
anti-armour performance.

[Peter Stickney]

Sorry for taking so long, but I was lining up some ducks...

In article >,
"John Mullen" > writes:
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "John Mullen" > writes:
>> > "Emilio" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> >Actually they admitted they copied the US Shuttle.
>> >>
>> >> More I think about Buran, it is clear that the politician who decided
> to
>> >> "copy" the shuttle and not the engineers. Russian industry simply was
> not
>> >> setup to produce space qualified $20 nuts and bolts like we do. If
> they
>> >> made special run to make such nuts and bolts it would have cost them
> $100
>> > a
>> >> peace. Buran must have been reengineered to be able for them to build
> it
>> >> there. That's a problem though. It's going to get heavier than a US
>> >> shuttle. Reentry and flight parameters will no longer be the same do
> to
>> >> added weight. It's amazing that they made it to work in the first
> place.
>> >
>> > Actually, it was a superior design to the STS it was copied from.
> Heavier
>> > payload, more crew space and less rinky-dink stuff to blow up like the
> ET
>> > and the SRBs.
>>
>> Just teh Big Honkin' booster it was hooked to. Both configurations
>> have their advantages, and their risks.
>
> I can't think of any advantages to the STS's layout. What did you mean here?

Just off the top of my head - better alignment of teh Main Engine's
thrust lines with the CG of the entire stack. This gives you less
problems with control, and more tolerance of off-normal
conditions. (Such as losing a Main Engine - it's happened once on STS)
Concentration of teh Guidance & COntrol systems in a single,
integrated system, rather than having two independant systems that
have to try to talk to each other. Keeping the expensive, reusable
bits in one place, and throwing away the cheap stuff. (As it turns
out, this didn't work out as well as originally expected - rather than
a clear advantage wrt reusing STS SSMEs vs. the Energia's cheaper,
(but still not cheap) expendables, it seems to be pretty much of a
wash.


>> >> Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.
>> >
>> > Buran: 1 unmanned flight, total success.
>>
>> Not a total success - teh flight article was structurally damaged on
>> re-entry. I don't know if repair was possible.
>
> That is news to me. See for example:
>
> http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm

<Mark Wade quote excized>

> Could you be mistaken? Or is this fairly new info? If the latter, I would be
> interested in knowing your source.

No, I'm not mistaken. It's not new info, although teh (then) Soviets
weren't too big on publishing it. There are various sources, but the
best place to go, if you can read Russian, is the Official Buran
site:
Http://www.buran.ru/

Even if you don't read Russian, here are some post-flight images of
Buran:

http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle01.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle02.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle03.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle04.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle05.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle06.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle07.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle08.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle09.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle10.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle11.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle12.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle13.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle14.jpg
http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle15.jpg

While most of them are pretty ordinary - some damage occurs on any
flight, pay special attention to image 15. That's a breach of teh
wing structure, caused by poor joints between the Carbon-Carbon
Leading Edge and the Ceramic Tiles that cover most of the wing skin.
The Russians were fairly coy about the internal damage, but from the
scarring and marks left by hte exiting material, it wasn't trivial.
At best, you're talking about rebuilding/replacing the wing. At
worst, it goes to Monino and you fly the #2 flight article. Thay're
lucky that it occurred out toward the wingtip. If it had been where
the chine & the wing come together, where the shock impingement from
the bow shock occurs, (And where Columbia's damage occurred), it would
have been much, much worse.

>
>> > STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.
>>
>> A hair over a 98% success rate, a bit better than Soyuz (Which also
>> had 2 fatal flights, with 100% crew loss on each, (But smaller crews),
>> and several launch aborts. And a number of nasty landing incidents.
>
> Really? I cannot easily find a total for the number of Soyuz missions but
> feel sure it must be way over the 100-odd of the STS. Do you have better
> figures?

Currently, the number is 90 Soyuz flights, and 112 Shuttle flights.
http://space.kursknet.ru/cosmos/english/main.sht hads been keeping a
running total, valid through late May, 2004. (no flights since then)

> And to me the survivable aborts are an indication of the robustness of the
> 1960s design. The people on Challenger would have loved a surviveable abort
> system. The people on Columbia would have loved merely to have suffered a
> nasty landing incident.

They're not really relevant - every vehicle, from a Skateboard to a
Shuttle, has failure modes which are not survivable. If the aborts
had taken place at a slightly different time, or the reentry and
landing incidents, like the time a Soyuz Service Module didn't detach
after retrofire, causing the Soyusz to reenter not heatshield first,
but Aluminum hatch cover first (The SM burned away, allowing the
spacecraft to reorient itself before the crew was lost), and the
guidance problems that have caused some reentries to occur hundreds
of miles off from their targets could very easily have been much worse.

Aviation, and especially Spaceflight, is all about tradeoffs. What
sorts of system could have been aboard Challenger that would have
extended the survival envelope significantly, and wouldn't have been a
hazard during most of the flight? And which wouldnt' require some
compromise of the stucture? What system could possible have turned
Columbia's loss to a nasty landing incident? I don't see any systems
that would allow a successful bailout at Mach 25/200,000'. (You
could, I suppose, postulate something like MOOSE, but that's only
useful before the retro burn occurs)

>
> (I never mentioned Soyuz btw!)

Whenever the "Two Accidents, 100% crew loss" line comes up, a
comparison with Soyuz reliability is not far behind. There's no
reasonable comparison to anything else, after all. Buran made 1
limited flight, got broken, although the full extent still isn't
known, during that flight, and sat in the assemble building until the
building collapsed on it.
>
>> There's no objective indication that the expendable Soyuz capsule is
>> any safer than the STS.
>
> Er.. how about the fact that the STS is currently grounded for safety
> improvements after the last fatal crash? Leaving Soyuz as the world's only
> manned orbital vehicle, other than the Chinese and maybe Bert Rutan!

That's not objective, it's subjective.
Because the Russians, (and for that matter, us) are willing to accept
the risks that flying Soyuz right now represent. That doesn't make it
risk-free. Anytime you fly anything, whether it's a kite or a 747
with 500 people aboard, or a spacecraft, you run the risk of a fatal
crash. If you fly something enough, it becomes pretty much certain
that you'll crash it. To a large extent, it's a question of whether
the risk is perceived to be sufficiently minimized. Here in the U.S.,
we see that there are steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of
Shuttle flights, and we'er willing to take the time to implement
them. I don't think there's a lot that you can do to make a Soyuz
less risky. (Which does not make it risk free).

As for Burt Rutan, please don't make the mistake that SpaceShipOne is
the harbinger of entry into orbit. It's not. The design is very
heavily optimized for a single, very limited goal - getting an X-prize
equivalent mass to 100 km altitude. The peak Mach Numbers for SS1 are
down around Mach 2, the materials are all conventional, and the
"shuttlecock" re-entry profile isn't going to hack Mach 25. Don't get
me wrong, it's an excellent achievment, but useful Space Travel it
isn't.

>
>> > I'd say the Russians realised they had no need of a shuttle and quit
> while
>> > they were ahead.
>>
>> More like they couldn't afford it. Both Buran and Energia (The
>> booster)
>
> Well sure. It is true that their country did collapse during the devlopment
> of the Buran and Energia projects, leading to their cancellation. My point
> was that this wasn't because they were inferior kit, quite the contrary.

But there also isn't enough sample size to claim with any validity
that it was superior, either.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Alan Minyard]

On 13 Jun 2004 10:52:07 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>> > The Hungarians may have had their own indigneous project. Don't
>> > forget they did have the worlds first turboprop in the 1930s. It
>> > worked but had problems with the combustion chamber burn through.
>> > Someting that could only be solved with hard work on the test stand or
>> > good alloys.
>>
>> And which turboprop would that be? My understanding is the british did it first, and it
>> was in the 1940s.
>
>The Jendrassic CS-1 designed in 1938 and tested in August 1940. The
>war stopped its production even though a specific aircraft was
>designed to fly with it- the Hungarian RMI-1 X/H which was fitted with
>DB engines instead and destroyed in a bombing raid.
>
>Rob
\
In other words, it never flew and was just another failed project.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 06:25:55 GMT, Kristan Roberge > wrote:

>
>
>Alistair Gunn wrote:
>
>> Kristan Roberge twisted the electrons to say:
>> > Well columbia's solution would have been to park to the ISS and stay
>> > there until NASA can get their arse in gear and rush another orbiter
>> > into orbit...
>>
>> ... and where does Columbia find the fuel to do this?
>
>there's no rule that says you have to RUSH to a higher orbit.

The orbits are radically different, the Shuttle could not have come
close to the ISS. Not even "slowly" (as if that would matter).

Al Minyard

[Eunometic]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On 13 Jun 2004 10:52:07 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> >> > The Hungarians may have had their own indigneous project. Don't
> >> > forget they did have the worlds first turboprop in the 1930s. It
> >> > worked but had problems with the combustion chamber burn through.
> >> > Someting that could only be solved with hard work on the test stand or
> >> > good alloys.
> >>
> >> And which turboprop would that be? My understanding is the british did it first, and it
> >> was in the 1940s.
> >
> >The Jendrassic CS-1 designed in 1938 and tested in August 1940. The
> >war stopped its production even though a specific aircraft was
> >designed to fly with it- the Hungarian RMI-1 X/H which was fitted with
> >DB engines instead and destroyed in a bombing raid.
> >
> >Rob
> \
> In other words, it never flew and was just another failed project.
>
> Al Minyard

Hungarian, Gyorgy Jendrassik who worked for the Ganz wagon works in
Budapest designed the very first working turboprop engine in 1938.
Called the Cs-1, Jendrassik's engine was first tested in August of
1940; the Cs-1 was abandoned in 1941 without going into production due
to the War. Max Mueller designed the first turboprop engine that went
into production in 1942.

He will forever be remembered for making the worlds first turbo-prop.

At the time the little nation of Hungary was well ahead of the USA and
the UK in this field. One wonders what would have happened had the
USA and UK had a Soviet army 10 times the size bearing down on them.

Their turbo-prop engine worked but had combustion difficulties and
power and life were well down. Wheras the Germans had the resources
to build the massive test chambers (complete with multimega****t
refrigeration, water spray, alitude, instrumentation, wind tunnels
etc) to make the adjustments the Hungarians did not.

There is a picture of it here:
http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/ListOfEngines/EnginesOther.htm

I believe the very influential German Engineer Max Mueller designed
the first turboprop engine that went into production (for a test
program) in 1942 most likely under Heinkel. (he changed employment
from Junkers, Heinkel and Porche)
I'd have to check my sources though.

[Krztalizer]

>I believe the very influential German Engineer Max Mueller designed
>the first turboprop engine that went into production (for a test
>program) in 1942 most likely under Heinkel.

Wasn't he on the team that laid out the installation of turboprops for a
three-seat nightfighter 262? I think that project was as futuristic as
anything hatched in the furtile minds of the wartime air industry. I have
copies of some of the engineering line studies that the same group of designers
dreamt up. They were getting mighty creative at finding ways to keep busy as
the Ostfront lept closer and sucked up more men; the different methods of
airborne search equipment and new technologies into that aircraft - the most
important improvement to the "Interim Nightfighter" could be turboprop engines
to enable better thrust response, a vital improvement over the touchy Jumos.
Never got built though. It would have made a fine museum piece.

Still holding out hope that someday, I will be handed a photograph of the
remains of a similar "Nazi" secret weapon, the HG III nightfighter, completed
just in time for capture but never seen again... vanished... Would -love- to
see a faded, age-yellowed Agfa print photograph of that particular airframe: I
imagine it laying crumpled in a heap among a few junked Me 262s from the summer
of 45, when they joined all the other suddenly obsolete Luftwaffe warplanes -
in junkpiles. I know some GI somewhere has a photo of himself leaning against
the rotting hulk of the HGIII - I just have to wait to see it.

Or Dave could get off his duff and find it for me. If he was a REAL friend, he
would.

v/r
Gordon
(my guess is that I will find the whole damn thing on Ebay, some day in the
future)

[Dave Kearton]

"Krztalizer" > wrote in message
...

| Or Dave could get off his duff and find it for me. If he was a REAL
friend, he
| would.
|
| v/r
| Gordon



Gordon, I live in a German village in the Adelaide Hills. If you
wanted to speak to Fritz that night fighter pilot about his parts
collection, you only had to ask. In the end, when he died last year
in that tragic bungee jumping accident he left his collection of secret
German super weapons to Robert Arndt. I should have said something
when Jolly got the jet engines, but I thought you knew.





Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Krztalizer]

>
>Gordon, I live in a German village in the Adelaide Hills.

Guten'day, mate.

> If you
>wanted to speak to Fritz that night fighter pilot about his parts
>collection, you only had to ask.

<banging head against padded cell door> Now he tells me.

yfG

[John Mullen]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sorry for taking so long, but I was lining up some ducks...

(snip)

> > I can't think of any advantages to the STS's layout. What did you mean
here?
>
> Just off the top of my head - better alignment of teh Main Engine's
> thrust lines with the CG of the entire stack. This gives you less
> problems with control, and more tolerance of off-normal
> conditions. (Such as losing a Main Engine - it's happened once on STS)

The Buran didn't have Main Engines on the Shuttle. One of its major
advantages to me, not having all that plumbing to the ET...

> Concentration of teh Guidance & COntrol systems in a single,
> integrated system, rather than having two independant systems that
> have to try to talk to each other. Keeping the expensive, reusable
> bits in one place, and throwing away the cheap stuff. (As it turns
> out, this didn't work out as well as originally expected - rather than
> a clear advantage wrt reusing STS SSMEs vs. the Energia's cheaper,
> (but still not cheap) expendables, it seems to be pretty much of a
> wash.

Exactly. Although the original concept of the STS being a reuseable vehicle
was excellent, the compromises made during the design process (many at the
behest of the DoD) negated them almost entirely.

>
> >> >> Well, the Astronauts never flew it. That tells you something.
> >> >
> >> > Buran: 1 unmanned flight, total success.
> >>
> >> Not a total success - teh flight article was structurally damaged on
> >> re-entry. I don't know if repair was possible.
> >
> > That is news to me. See for example:
> >
> > http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm
>
> <Mark Wade quote excized>
>
> > Could you be mistaken? Or is this fairly new info? If the latter, I
would be
> > interested in knowing your source.
>
> No, I'm not mistaken. It's not new info, although teh (then) Soviets
> weren't too big on publishing it. There are various sources, but the
> best place to go, if you can read Russian, is the Official Buran
> site:
> Http://www.buran.ru/
>
> Even if you don't read Russian, here are some post-flight images of
> Buran:
>
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle01.jpg
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle02.jpg
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle03.jpg
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle04.jpg
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle05.jpg
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle06.jpg
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle07.jpg
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle08.jpg
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle09.jpg
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle10.jpg
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle11.jpg
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle12.jpg
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle13.jpg
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle14.jpg
> http://www.buran.ru/images/jpg/posle15.jpg
>
> While most of them are pretty ordinary - some damage occurs on any
> flight, pay special attention to image 15. That's a breach of teh
> wing structure, caused by poor joints between the Carbon-Carbon
> Leading Edge and the Ceramic Tiles that cover most of the wing skin.
> The Russians were fairly coy about the internal damage, but from the
> scarring and marks left by hte exiting material, it wasn't trivial.
> At best, you're talking about rebuilding/replacing the wing. At
> worst, it goes to Monino and you fly the #2 flight article. Thay're
> lucky that it occurred out toward the wingtip. If it had been where
> the chine & the wing come together, where the shock impingement from
> the bow shock occurs, (And where Columbia's damage occurred), it would
> have been much, much worse.

Interesting.

> >
> >> > STS ~100 manned flights, two total losses, 14 deaths.
> >>
> >> A hair over a 98% success rate, a bit better than Soyuz (Which also
> >> had 2 fatal flights, with 100% crew loss on each, (But smaller crews),
> >> and several launch aborts. And a number of nasty landing incidents.
> >
> > Really? I cannot easily find a total for the number of Soyuz missions
but
> > feel sure it must be way over the 100-odd of the STS. Do you have better
> > figures?
>
> Currently, the number is 90 Soyuz flights, and 112 Shuttle flights.
> http://space.kursknet.ru/cosmos/english/main.sht hads been keeping a
> running total, valid through late May, 2004. (no flights since then)
>
> > And to me the survivable aborts are an indication of the robustness of
the
> > 1960s design. The people on Challenger would have loved a surviveable
abort
> > system. The people on Columbia would have loved merely to have suffered
a
> > nasty landing incident.
>
> They're not really relevant - every vehicle, from a Skateboard to a
> Shuttle, has failure modes which are not survivable. If the aborts
> had taken place at a slightly different time, or the reentry and
> landing incidents, like the time a Soyuz Service Module didn't detach
> after retrofire, causing the Soyusz to reenter not heatshield first,
> but Aluminum hatch cover first (The SM burned away, allowing the
> spacecraft to reorient itself before the crew was lost), and the
> guidance problems that have caused some reentries to occur hundreds
> of miles off from their targets could very easily have been much worse.
>
> Aviation, and especially Spaceflight, is all about tradeoffs. What
> sorts of system could have been aboard Challenger that would have
> extended the survival envelope significantly, and wouldn't have been a
> hazard during most of the flight?

Simple. A parachute for each crew member and a bail out pole, as they fitted
post-Challenger, might have at least given them a sporting chance.

>And which wouldnt' require some
> compromise of the stucture? What system could possible have turned
> Columbia's loss to a nasty landing incident? I don't see any systems
> that would allow a successful bailout at Mach 25/200,000'. (You
> could, I suppose, postulate something like MOOSE, but that's only
> useful before the retro burn occurs)
>
> >
> > (I never mentioned Soyuz btw!)
>
> Whenever the "Two Accidents, 100% crew loss" line comes up, a
> comparison with Soyuz reliability is not far behind. There's no
> reasonable comparison to anything else, after all. Buran made 1
> limited flight, got broken, although the full extent still isn't
> known, during that flight, and sat in the assemble building until the
> building collapsed on it.
> >
> >> There's no objective indication that the expendable Soyuz capsule is
> >> any safer than the STS.
> >
> > Er.. how about the fact that the STS is currently grounded for safety
> > improvements after the last fatal crash? Leaving Soyuz as the world's
only
> > manned orbital vehicle, other than the Chinese and maybe Bert Rutan!
>
> That's not objective, it's subjective.
> Because the Russians, (and for that matter, us) are willing to accept
> the risks that flying Soyuz right now represent. That doesn't make it
> risk-free. Anytime you fly anything, whether it's a kite or a 747
> with 500 people aboard, or a spacecraft, you run the risk of a fatal
> crash. If you fly something enough, it becomes pretty much certain
> that you'll crash it. To a large extent, it's a question of whether
> the risk is perceived to be sufficiently minimized. Here in the U.S.,
> we see that there are steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of
> Shuttle flights, and we'er willing to take the time to implement
> them. I don't think there's a lot that you can do to make a Soyuz
> less risky. (Which does not make it risk free).

Granted.

> As for Burt Rutan, please don't make the mistake that SpaceShipOne is
> the harbinger of entry into orbit. It's not. The design is very
> heavily optimized for a single, very limited goal - getting an X-prize
> equivalent mass to 100 km altitude. The peak Mach Numbers for SS1 are
> down around Mach 2, the materials are all conventional, and the
> "shuttlecock" re-entry profile isn't going to hack Mach 25. Don't get
> me wrong, it's an excellent achievment, but useful Space Travel it
> isn't.

I still think it is a very good step in the right direction. Waiting with
bated breath...

> >
> >> > I'd say the Russians realised they had no need of a shuttle and quit
> > while
> >> > they were ahead.
> >>
> >> More like they couldn't afford it. Both Buran and Energia (The
> >> booster)
> >
> > Well sure. It is true that their country did collapse during the
devlopment
> > of the Buran and Energia projects, leading to their cancellation. My
point
> > was that this wasn't because they were inferior kit, quite the contrary.
>
> But there also isn't enough sample size to claim with any validity
> that it was superior, either.

No. I still think though that is was a shame it wasn't persevered with.

John

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"John Mullen" > writes:
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Sorry for taking so long, but I was lining up some ducks...
>
> (snip)
>
>> > I can't think of any advantages to the STS's layout. What did you mean
> here?
>>
>> Just off the top of my head - better alignment of the Main Engine's
>> thrust lines with the CG of the entire stack. This gives you less
>> problems with control, and more tolerance of off-normal
>> conditions. (Such as losing a Main Engine - it's happened once on STS)
>
> The Buran didn't have Main Engines on the Shuttle. One of its major
> advantages to me, not having all that plumbing to the ET...

You asked what advantages there were for the STS layout over the
Bura/Energia. To be more explicit, the STS's placement of the main
engines in the Orbiter give a superior thrust line through the CG of
teh stack as a whole, leading to teh advantages in control and
tolerance of failure. The Energia setup, with the Main Engines on
what is essentially the external tank section of teh stack, has the
advantage in terms of operational flexibility - you can use an Energia
stack to launch something other than Buran, for a cargo-only flight.
The problem is that Energia's cargo is still parallel staged,
(side-by-side), and the problems of guidance & control of the stack,
and tolerance of failures remain. While teh plumbing of teh external
tank to the Shuttle is a bit complicated, it hasn't been much of a
factor wrt flying the Shuttle. It could probably benefit from some of
the Russian's rather better crygenic plumbing connectors, though.

>
>> Concentration of the Guidance & Control systems in a single,
>> integrated system, rather than having two independant systems that
>> have to try to talk to each other. Keeping the expensive, reusable
>> bits in one place, and throwing away the cheap stuff. (As it turns
>> out, this didn't work out as well as originally expected - rather than
>> a clear advantage wrt reusing STS SSMEs vs. the Energia's cheaper,
>> (but still not cheap) expendables, it seems to be pretty much of a
>> wash.
>
> Exactly. Although the original concept of the STS being a reuseable vehicle
> was excellent, the compromises made during the design process (many at the
> behest of the DoD) negated them almost entirely.

The biggest problems with Shuttle reusibilit costs weren't physical,
but people/management/the economy in general - Labor costs in the
1970s skyrocketed, and that put the overhead costs of teh refit &
refurbish cycle through the roof.


>> They're not really relevant - every vehicle, from a Skateboard to a
>> Shuttle, has failure modes which are not survivable. If the aborts
>> had taken place at a slightly different time, or the reentry and
>> landing incidents, like the time a Soyuz Service Module didn't detach
>> after retrofire, causing the Soyusz to reenter not heatshield first,
>> but Aluminum hatch cover first (The SM burned away, allowing the
>> spacecraft to reorient itself before the crew was lost), and the
>> guidance problems that have caused some reentries to occur hundreds
>> of miles off from their targets could very easily have been much worse.
>>
>> Aviation, and especially Spaceflight, is all about tradeoffs. What
>> sorts of system could have been aboard Challenger that would have
>> extended the survival envelope significantly, and wouldn't have been a
>> hazard during most of the flight?
>
> Simple. A parachute for each crew member and a bail out pole, as they fitted
> post-Challenger, might have at least given them a sporting chance.

I rather doubt it. bailing out from a Shuttle, or any large airplane,
such as a KC-135, requires the the aircraft be in steady, stable
flight - not a piece of wreckage tumbling through the sky at more than
Mach 3. Then you've got the problems that come from jumping above
50,000' (Note that the Challenger's cabin section's trajectory peaked
somewhere around 100,000' - anybody jumping would follow the same
tarajectory fairly closely - there isn't much drag up there.) Any
escape mechanism used in the region where teh Challenger's loss
occurred has to provide Pressure, Oxygen, protection from the cold -
Jumping at 50,000' and free-falling means that you'll most likely
freexe to death in short order - and protection from the prepellant
residues of the boost motors, which are extremely corrosive. Ejection
seats don't add much in the way of a _usable_ escape envelope, and add
in all the dangers that accompany hot seats in airplanes - the risks
of catastrophe due to inadvertantly activating a seat - not just the
big things like, say, blowing a section of the cabin roof off with
Primacord in orbit, but if setting off pyros & such in the cabin
atmosphere, would increase teh overall danger. Capsules would, at a
great penalty in wieht and structure, extend the envelope a bit
further, but no much - the big problem with ejecting much
higher/faster than Challenger was going when the breakup occurred is
that the deceleration incurred on an unmodified ballistic trajectory
are on teh order of 50-60Gs, and aren't survivable. Adding the
ability to change the trajectory would make any such system too heavy
and complicated to be worth it.

>> As for Burt Rutan, please don't make the mistake that SpaceShipOne is
>> the harbinger of entry into orbit. It's not. The design is very
>> heavily optimized for a single, very limited goal - getting an X-prize
>> equivalent mass to 100 km altitude. The peak Mach Numbers for SS1 are
>> down around Mach 2, the materials are all conventional, and the
>> "shuttlecock" re-entry profile isn't going to hack Mach 25. Don't get
>> me wrong, it's an excellent achievment, but useful Space Travel it
>> isn't.
>
> I still think it is a very good step in the right direction. Waiting with
> bated breath...

We've been through this before - technologically, SS1 is less of a
challenge than the X-15, 45 years ago. While SS1's performance will
be sufficient to win the X-Prize, it won't yield a useful, productive
system. I'm not seeking to minimize the achievement, but let's not
blow it up beyond what it really is.

<In Re: Buran and Energiya>

> No. I still think though that is was a shame it wasn't persevered with.

They were keeping it around, stored against the possibility that there
may be some interest in the future. But the Assemply Building
collapsed on it. If they couldn't keep a fairly new building
together, I rather doubt that they were going to be re-starting any
serious, and expensive development programs anytime soon.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster